Hierarchy in Polyamory: A Critical Perspective

A very well-respected author once told me that one should admit one's biases right from the start. There’s no point in trying to hide your bias. For one thing, you usually don’t do a good job of it. Secondly, it’s somewhat dishonest. So, I will start this article by admitting my own bias: hierarchical polyamory was very painful for me. I had very bad experiences with it. For this reason, I have a difficult time focusing on how hierarchical polyamorous relationships can work. That said, I will do my best to discuss hierarchical and non-hierarchical polyamory fairly.

When an established monogamous couple decides to venture into the realm of polyamory, they often begin by expecting and clinging to hierarchical structures. Of course, it is natural that when one feels something they value is threatened, they attempt to protect it. Couples who love one another and value their relationship will want to preserve it. While they may be open to new relationships and new love, they often want to prioritize their established relationship in a way that deprioritizes other relationships. These couples might agree on rules that other relationships must follow. Some of these rules include things like requiring contraceptives for sex with different partners, limiting the amount of time one can spend with another partner, and/or restricting the level of commitment one can give to another partner. People in hierarchical relationships often feel comforted by these rules, believing that they protect the priority of their established relationship by enforcing such guidelines.

Distinguishing Types of Hierarchy

As I talk about this particular type of hierarchy, I need to make some distinctions. The hierarchy I have described above is sometimes referred to as prescriptive hierarchy. This means that a rule or a set of rules establishes one relationship as primary and the other as secondary. On the other hand, I am not referring to what is sometimes called descriptive hierarchy. By this, I mean that certain relationships take priority not because any rule is in place, but simply because that is how the people involved have chosen to live. Often, in these descriptive hierarchies, the participants share resources like money or children, or they have a long history together that causes them to prioritize the relationship in particular ways. The key difference between descriptive and prescriptive hierarchy is that those involved in a descriptive hierarchy can change it as they wish. While they may have a legal spouse with whom they raise children, they are free to make choices that alter that structure. They may have another partner move in or decide to share finances with another partner. No rule in place obliges them to always prioritize one relationship. They simply do it because it aligns with their needs at a given time. But they are free to change.

A prescriptive hierarchy, on the other hand, involves a set of rules that partners agree to, which require them to prioritize one relationship over another. These rules seek to limit the behavior of a partner in a way that maintains a status quo. For instance, perhaps a couple agrees that they will always sleep next to each other, so they establish a rule that there will be no overnights with other partners. This rule is intended to limit behavior and maintain the expectation of the primary relationship. In a descriptive hierarchy, it may be difficult for a partner to have overnights for specific reasons, such as raising children, but there is no rule that limits their ability to change the relationship. Instead, the realities of life create expectations that are unavoidable as relationships evolve.

Ethical Considerations in Hierarchical Relationships

In other articles, I have discussed how ethical non-monogamy must include informed consent. This means that a person must have enough information to understand what they are agreeing to, and they must agree to it without any form of coercion or penalty. So, the question arises: can a hierarchical relationship be ethical? According to the criteria mentioned above, it can be. People involved can knowingly, and with full understanding, agree to abide by a set of rules. However, it’s important that effort is made for everyone involved to understand those rules and provide their full consent. This means that, as you enter a "secondary" relationship, those involved must be fully aware of what they are agreeing to. They must know that you will never have overnights, that you will always use contraception with other partners, or that certain behaviors are restricted by agreements with your "primary partner." In theory, it is possible to engage in hierarchical polyamory ethically.

The Challenges of Hierarchical Polyamory

That said, in practice, I find hierarchy to create more problems than it solves. As you enter into "secondary" relationships, you may find that rules that once felt comfortable no longer do. What once seemed like reasonable boundaries can, over time, become constrictive. While you might never have imagined spending the night with another partner at first, a few months in, the desire for that kind of intimacy may arise. Moreover, while a secondary partner might initially be content with limited time together, after a year, they may resent not being able to see you on major holidays or post on your social media because of restrictions imposed by your primary partner. The rules that once felt simple often become sources of future resentment.

Furthermore, the rules that hierarchical relationships impose often fail to accomplish their intended goal. These rules are usually created to preserve the uniqueness and privacy of the established relationship, but in reality, they often foster resentment and distance between partners. Over time, as one partner falls in love with someone else and wishes to renegotiate the rules, the partner who is not yet ready for that change may find themselves in the position of limiting and controlling a partner who no longer fully consents to those rules. A couple might initially agree that overnight stays are off-limits, but when one partner falls in love and desires that level of intimacy, they face a choice: either hurt their established partner by asking to change the rules or live with resentment of rules they no longer wish to follow. This creates friction and distance in the original relationship.

A Better Approach: Shared Values Over Rules

A better approach, at least in my opinion, is to avoid hierarchy and rigid rules as much as possible. Instead, focusing on a discussion of shared values is more productive. Perhaps a couple who embraces hierarchy and forbids overnights does so in order to protect the time they share together, avoiding the negative feelings that might arise when one partner sleeps alone. A conversation about the values involved is more connecting and less likely to lead to resentment. It’s likely that both partners want to continue spending significant time together and don’t want to cause each other loneliness or discomfort. Instead of creating rules that restrict our future selves in ways we can’t predict, an ongoing discussion of values builds both freedom and intimacy.

Rather than creating rules to limit our partners, we should reflect on our own codependence. Is it our partner’s responsibility to prevent us from feeling lonely? Does our partner owe us anything in that regard? Do we want to limit our partner's freedom just to make ourselves feel better? The answer to all of these questions is usually a resounding no. So why create rules to do this? Wouldn’t it be better to know that your partner is with you because they want to be, not because they agreed to a specific arrangement six months ago?

Temporary Concessions and Long-Term Growth

This doesn’t mean that we can’t ask anything of our partner. Of course, we have needs. As we transition from monogamy to non-monogamy, it is reasonable to ask for temporary concessions to help us adjust to the changes. However, these concessions are less problematic when they are recognized as temporary and part of the process, rather than permanent agreements that cannot be renegotiated. For example, a temporary agreement to avoid overnights may be reasonable in the first few months of polyamory, depending on both partners' desires. If one partner rejects such a temporary concession, it should not be viewed as a betrayal. It’s unethical to manipulate a partner into agreeing to something they truly don’t want. We need to be okay with our partner rejecting concessions, even if they are temporary.

Non-Hierarchical Polyamory: Freedom with Responsibility

While a non-hierarchical polyamorous relationship doesn’t mean people can do whatever they want without regard for their partner, it does emphasize the importance of shared values. Partners need to ensure that they want the same things from the relationship. Many couples who are initially excited about opening their relationship forget to discuss long-term values that they want to prioritize. When meeting new people and exploring new sexual experiences, the excitement can temporarily destabilize an established relationship. Partners in such relationships have every right to discuss their needs and shared values. But rather than agreeing to rules that will eventually need to be renegotiated, it’s more productive to have ongoing discussions of values and consensual concessions.

Conclusion: Flexibility in Polyamory

In polyamory, as in life, change is inevitable. What your partner wants today may not be what they want in a year. Just as your partner might change their career or hobbies, their desires in the realm of relationships may also evolve. This does not signify betrayal. Understanding that our partners' needs and desires will change can help us approach polyamory with more flexibility and less attachment to rigid rules.

While it is theoretically possible to maintain an ethically hierarchical polyamorous relationship, my experience has been that such structures often lead to bitterness and resentment over time.